also teaches that such readministration is necessary when there is a current essential indication for
the drug and when there are no suitable pharmacologic alternatives. Thus, in order to administer the
protocol to a large number of patients, and also to reduce dosing errors, one of ordinary skill would
have been motivated to produce the spironolactone as a capsule or tablet in the smaller disclosed
dosages required by the protocol. Appellant’s argument that unexpectedly favorable results are
obtained using the claimed dosages is also not convincing as Greenberger specifically teaches
administration of the spironolactone at the claimed dosage amount.
OTHER MATTERS
Appellant also argues that the terminal disclaimer filed along with the petition to revive, mailed
August 2, 2001, is proper. See Appeal Brief, page 8. The examiner asserts that the terminal
disclaimer is improper because it fails to reference the instant application or identify the parent
application in the body of the terminal disclaimer. That is a formal matter subject to petition,
however, and the Board is not the proper forum to review the examiner’s conclusion that the terminal
disclaimer is improper. See MPEP § 1201.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended
under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007